and put that into all articles - maybe easier? there, we have a special articles to be merged discussion page, here we could just use the Article 1 discussion: so one could make a "preferred suggestion" - it would be compatible, as if only one parameter is given, all remains the same --W!B: 20:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The preview icon was , removed as "fixed" (against . I mean this is a more personal opinion, because the Tango style is the prefered style on Commons. So you can vote here what do you think. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 23:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

because the Tango style is the prefered style on Commons – why do you think so? In my opinion, the Tango icons would make the template unnecessarily large, that's why I chose the 2D arrows, which are also in use in the English Wikipedia version of the template. FDMS 4 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is broken and unusable as is wrt the discussion page for a template, e.g., an otherwise sound "merge" suggestion for {{circa}} links to Template_talk:Template:Other_date, and adding discuss=Template talk:Other date explicitly has no effect.

Oh. No, this can't work, because the template now works cross-namespace, while the default discuss link still prepends the current namespace to the full page title of the merger target or (even worse) origin. Working on it … FDMS 4 01:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The {{circa}} issue was solved by Jarekt (maybe, not checked) weeks ago while upgrading {{other date}}, that's the only example I knew. {{PD-USGov-NIH}} might be a bogey, it needs admin rights to remove it as done or obsolete. The unprotected {{Image template notice}} looks odd, also a red link Autocat as target, and an explicitly set discuss= working as it should. Just in case, I'm normally using en-GB, but for this example en and de are identical. Only a bogus target, presumably it should be {{Autocat}}. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a namespace is now always required, I will add this to the documentation. FDMS 4 01:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This should finally solve the discussion link issues. Sorry for breaking this template! FDMS 4 01:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)